Absolutely, yes. Single-chip designs are always compromises, for example you could screw up some on-chip hardware RNGs by lowering the supply voltage, using irregular clocking, and a bunch of other tricks. A proper HSM has a ton of additional circuitry to isolate it from external influences on its operation. A single SoC isn't an HSM no matter what the vendor's sales staff tell you.

No-one certified it. Proper HSMs are created by people with decades of experience and get enormous amounts of evaluation by other people with decades of experience. "Hardware wallets" are hobby projects created by people who think they can take an STM32, turn on the security bits, and sell it as an HSM. The crowdfunding will go well because the crypto bros will go gaga over it, but don't expect it to actually be secure.

Music charts died with Casey Kasem.

This isn't saying much. GDPR has improved neither privacy nor security. EU regulation has the same effectiveness of CA cancer warnings.

It is none of Google's business what software any of us run on our own computers.

And now they are publicly boasting about it expecting to be rewarded for their efforts.

The clock, to make sure they don't run out of time before investors realise they're just seeing who can built the biggest bonfire of dollar bills.

It's a bit like the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s when they only had access to domestically-made equipment. Only back then we did it to them as a Cold War act of aggression, and now the US is voluntarily doing it to itself. Quite bizarre.

Are you sure it wouldn't be able to figure it out anyway?

This is premature. All anyone knows at this point is one persons story. Actual context and circumstances matter.

Depends, would I want someone to publicly tell me to "go fuck myself"?

Been around enough shops to see the boards sales goons keep with their rankings. Seems to be common enough for everyone to know where everyone else in the shop stands. (public shame or fame included) For me the question of the pies.. aside from volunteering to participate how it was actually intended and received not the facts of what occurred.

Personally I'd take this arrangement (and the pies) any day over performance reviews at shit companies I've worked for in the past. At least here judgement is objective and not contingent upon mental disorders and the political scheming of lazy hacks.

I don't think legal liability should be based on what people want.

I disagree with this sentiment. I think some competition which necessarily implies public awareness of the performance of others is healthy in any organization.

This is an assumption on your part based on one persons story.

This "tell us" "without telling us" rhetoric is a pointless entirely derisive device that conveys no objective information of any kind.

The Ukraine war is a WWI style war of attrition massively favoring defending forces. If you look at the map Russians are only in areas of Ukraine with contiguous unbroken communication lines to Russia and those communication lines are continuously harassed in depth.

While every country is increasingly vulnerable to remote bombing the opposite is true when it comes to invasion.

The only lever the FCC has here is withholding certification for the radios. It does not have the authority to ban robots. China could produce a robot without RF communication or use bands outside of FCCs ability to control.

The FCC has no such authority to ban inverters or robots or anything else. What this is really about is targeting of radios in such devices that require FCC approval and denying approval not based on technical characteristics of the hardware but politics. This is the same covered list trick as the "router ban" which also bans radios not routers.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf...

And of course just like the router ban it comes with an arbitrary shakedown regime:

"The Executive Branch interagency body has established a process in which entities producing power inverters or advanced robotic devices in a foreign country can request an evaluation as to whether their devices do not pose unacceptable risks to national security and receive Conditional Approvals that would exempt the devices from the Covered List"

Dunning Kruger the Internet meme is discredited nonsense.

"Our results supported the third hypotheses by confirming that (a) peoples' self-assessed competence generally accords with their demonstrated proficiency and (b) peoples' frequencies of self-assessed underestimation of their competence are similar to their frequencies of overestimation."
"However, our study refuted two tenets of the second hypothesis by showing that (a) no strong propensity exists toward overconfidence in self-assessment ratings and (b) few people (about 5%) merit their being characterized as "unskilled and unaware of it"

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu...

All it talks about is rights in relations to encounters with police officers. It is explicitly all about the police and even mentions laws that apply specifically in relation to police encounters. Anyone can follow the link and make up their own mind what it does and does not say. Your reference was clearly never intended to serve as an exhaustive analysis of the domain.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Meta glasses also have capability of recording audio and your statement "News flash ... like it or not, in a public place you have consented to, and almost certainly are, being recorded." does not stipulate a specific modality.

Stop pretending you are smarter than the lawyers of the EFF:

"we often hear a familiar refrain: "you don't have an expectation of privacy in public." This is not true. In the United States, you do have some expectation of privacy - even in public - and it's important to stand up and protect that right."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Further my statements were concerning the use of data. Recall what I actually said "Being in a public space is not consent and just because you gather information from public areas or even public airwaves does not grant one carte blanch to do as they please."

Absent the barking like a rabid dog there is nothing left of your remarks. No coherent explanations, nothing of substance. I will note you have also failed to provide a single example of something that wasn't a "complete non-issue" in "competently done code" and completely ignored TOCTOU response to your obviously ignorant commentary regarding use after free.

Just shitting on people without bringing any coherent argument whatsoever to the table is a waste of everyone's time.

When you don't initialize variables the compiler, static and runtime analyzers are able to produce warnings of access without initialization in the code path. Often you want variables on the stack to be initialized where they are declared. In other instances the initial assignments are unknown at the time of declaration and will come later. By initializing everything regardless you needlessly bypass analysis logic baked into compilers, static and runtime analyzers. This shit is there for a reason and it is used to find bugs. I've used these methods successfully in the past to find logic bugs.

It's almost as if you've never heard of -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero which wouldn't surprise me in the least given the demonstrated lack of lack of substance in your highly ignorant statements. Sounds to like you are just a security d00d and don't really know shit about writing software.